Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Which Canon 70-200mm f2.8 to buy?
Jody Grigg, Photographer
Littleton | CO | USA | Posted: 10:31 PM on 05.12.12
->> I have had a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 non IS that I bought new about 8-9 years and has been an excellent lens no issues. But today I started to have focusing issues with it all day long, slow focusing, not sharp images. So it gets me wondering which Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lens should I get to replace it.

Canon 70-200mm non IS
Canon 70-200mm IS
Canon 70-200mm IS II

Thank in advance for your thoughts and sugguestions.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Alan Look, Photographer
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 10:39 PM on 05.12.12
->> I'd send it in and have it fixed. I've sent mine in a couple of times in the last dozen or so years and all combined I don't have the price of a new one in the repairs.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Sutton, Photographer
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 12:19 AM on 05.13.12
->> Back in November I traded my 70-200 IS which I brought in 05' for the IS II and to me this upgrade was well worth it.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 1:13 AM on 05.13.12
->> the 70-200 II no doubt about it.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 4:38 AM on 05.13.12
->> New IS II. Its awesome!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 7:57 AM on 05.13.12
->> Second Todd -- newest one all the way. It is a great lens. Works well with the latest TC too.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stew Milne, Photographer
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 12:40 PM on 05.13.12
->> Another thing to think about. If you plan to upgrade your camera bodies or already have, they don't play well with the old lenses. My non-IS 70-200 couldn't focus when attached to my new Mark IV. I ran a bunch of tests with a leased 70-200 II IS. Amazing difference between the two lenses. However, the old 70-200 worked great on my Mark IIn.

I bought the latest version, then sold my old one to someone who was very happy to buy it and put it on their D60.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

James Durbin, Photographer
Kirkwood | MO | USA | Posted: 5:55 PM on 05.13.12
->> I agree wholeheartedly with what was posted above. I had the non-IS and it served me well when paired with the older bodies but now that I have a Mark4 I got the new IS ver2 and it is amazing. Lighter, faster, sharper. I swear the lens is actually "brighter" if thats even possible.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Simon Wheeler, Photo Editor, Photographer
Ithaca | NY | USA | Posted: 7:10 PM on 05.13.12
->> James. I suspect that the screen your new camera is lighter along with you wallet. While I have no doubt the IS is a spectacular lens, the $1000 price difference is pretty spectacular. Call me cheap but I'd be fixing the old one.

Simon
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Andrew Carpenean, Photographer
Laramie | WY | USA | Posted: 7:40 PM on 05.13.12
->> I would suggest getting a repair estimate first and then make up your mind. Budgets are different for everyone. I don't doubt the series II is a better lens granted you don't mind spending the extra money for it.

Also, I have used a non IS 70-200 for going on two years on a mark IV without any issues. Just sayin'.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 9:45 PM on 05.13.12
->> The difference is not slight but dramatic espically wide open. A thousand dollars differene is worht it.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Preston Mack, Photographer
Orlando | FL | | Posted: 8:36 AM on 05.14.12
->> Will YOUR clients notice the increase in quality. Will it potentially make you more money? Are your clients "high end enough" to appreciate this? If not, get the cheaper one.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jody Grigg, Photographer
Littleton | CO | USA | Posted: 1:44 PM on 05.14.12
->> For those who have had the 70-200mm NON IS is there noticeable difference or just a slight difference in going to a IS version. I am normally shooting around f2.8-f4.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
Washington | D.C. | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 05.14.12
->> Listen to Preston. He gave the smartest advice in this thread hands down.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 05.14.12
->> About that will you have the same clients forever.
When you go for other work and someone else has sharper glass and gets the job you wanted. That advice Preston gave will seem very bad.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
Salisbury | NC | USA | Posted: 8:37 PM on 05.14.12
->> +1 on the Mk II. My Mk I was good wide open... my Mk II is stomp-down amazing at all apertures.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
Washington | D.C. | USA | Posted: 8:48 PM on 05.14.12
->> David, that is an excellent point and a great addition to Preston's advice.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Simon Wheeler, Photo Editor, Photographer
Ithaca | NY | USA | Posted: 10:26 PM on 05.14.12
->> To play devil's advocate. I'm a newspaper guy, and while I have a well earned reputation as a technical perfectionist, I never see my work reproduced well enough to be able to see the improvement one might get from the IS lens. Also I would rarely get any value from the IS feature so that colors my judgement.

Given that the 70-200 is such a bread and butter lens it might be worth the investment.

I'm just happy that I have decent gear for a guy at a small paper and my boss is really good about getting stuff fixed when it breaks. I had to learn to do the best I can with what I have rather than worry about some one else having better gear. If I were freelance it might be different.

I would say have less gear and make it really good stuff rather than a lot of mediocre gear. I suspect if you try an IS version you will never be able to go back. I try never to borrow or try out gear i can't afford.

If you fix the current lens for $300 and sell it you might only be $1500 out of pocket to get an IS version The repair might not even be that much if you have a CPS Gold discount or better. I have found them to be inexpensive to get fixed.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dennis Wierzbicki, Photographer
Plainfield | IL | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 05.15.12
->> FWIW, I recently acquired a copy of the version II 70-200 and it is markedly better than the 70-200 non-IS I've been using for the past 6 years. Faster and more accurate AF, and sharpr images. I also bought it to better work with my MkIII and MkIV, as the old non-IS 70-200 wasn't playing nice with the newer bodies.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

James Lathrop, Photographer
rochester | ny | usa | Posted: 9:17 AM on 05.31.12
->> YOUR LENS PROBABLY DOESNT NEED MORE THAN A GOOD CLEANING AND ADJUSTING. THERE ARE THREE VERSIONS OF THE NON IS LENS, THE THIRD HAVING THE MOST ADJUSTMENT POINTS OF ANY OF THEM. DONT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON A NEW ONE. SEND IT TO

T F Camera Repair in East Brunswick, New Jersey (nj)
Name: T F Camera Repair
Street: 27 Brunswick Woods Drive
East Brunswick, nj 08816-5601
Phone: (732) 238-8806

THIS GUYS FAIR , USED TO WORK AT CANON AS A REPAIR SPECIALIST AND STARTED HIS OWN REPAIR BUSINESS. TRY HIM AND SEE
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Neil Turner, Photographer
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 11:23 AM on 05.31.12
->> I think that new lenses always look better and sharper than out old lenses. Think about it - six or seven years of constant use will have damaged and or degraded the old lens by a tiny amount every year but the cumulative effect can be dramatic. I get my lenses serviced every year and so the effect seems to be far slighter. That having been said, the IS on the MkII is far better and the weather sealing is supposed to be a few percent better too.

Get the one that will put the most dollars in your pocket - and don't rule getting your current lens fully serviced out of that equation.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gregory Greene, Photographer
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 1:21 PM on 05.31.12
->> Used a non-IS for many years on a 1D2 and then a 1D4. Worked well on both bodies so I'm not sure what people are referring to. I didn't even need to make microfocus adjustments on it for the 1D4. If you don't need IS the non-IS is still a great lens offering terrific performance.

I'm now using the IS II because I simply wanted IS. Never noticed any difference between the two versions in AF speed or accuracy on my 1D4. Center sharpness on a crop body is very close but the IS II does have the advantage with edge sharpness on FF bodies.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 3:35 PM on 06.01.12
->> Hi I too shoot for a newspaper recently with my mk 1v and 70-200 vr 11 when I a old stock photographer I know called and said how are your photos getting so sharp. Well newer equipment does make a difference. Again the new lens is so much better at 2.8 to f4 it makes me not worry about using primes where I normally would before.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ed Chan, Photographer
San Diego | CA | US | Posted: 9:05 PM on 06.01.12
->> I had issues using the newer 70-200 Mk II with a 1D Mk III. I found that AF was OK in high contrast with the sun behind me but that it was unacceptable in low contrast side-lit situations. The 70-200 Mark II does have significantly better color/contrast.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Which Canon 70-200mm f2.8 to buy?
Thread Started By: Jody Grigg
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Longtime newspaper photographer turned commercial photographer feeding a va More Info Here ::..